The Papal Claims

[jimmy]

The question is, what is the purpose of the pope? If you are going to claim unity as the purpose then you are going to have to deal with a lot of historical facts like the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East being condemned for heresies which they didn’t even hold to. How was the pope the mode of unity in these situations? He lead to the condemnation of these Churches. That is a poor job of keeping unity.

The fact is that the papacy as it is is not historical. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had the schisms in the first millenium. It is like history’s biggest secret. We read history and we are supposed to see papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction but the Orientals and the CofE[ast] did not know of these concepts. The Eastern Orthodox did not know of these concepts.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The question is, what is the purpose of the pope?

I would say that since you are highly educated, this is more of a spiritual exercise than a intellectual one. Take it up in prayer.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

The question is, what is the purpose of the pope? If you are going to claim unity as the purpose then you are going to have to deal with a lot of historical facts like the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East being condemned for heresies which they didn’t even hold to. How was the pope the mode of unity in these situations? He lead to the condemnation of these Churches. That is a poor job of keeping unity.

The fact is that the papacy as it is is not historical. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had the schisms in the first millenium. It is like history’s biggest secret. We read history and we are supposed to see papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction but the Orientals and the CofE[ast] did not know of these concepts. The Eastern Orthodox did not know of these concepts.

Thank you for your question. This is something I wrestled with as well before I came into Catholic communion.

My research has led me to conclude that the complaint is merely part of a polemic agenda (recall, if you have ever read the thread “My Witness” that part of my awakening to Catholic identity involved being cleansed of misconceptions about the Catholic Church). My reading of Church history and modern Church documents convinced me that the Pope is NOT the arbitrary, autocratic, absolute monarch that the Orthodox and Protestant polemic makes him out to be.

The fact is, the Pope is the head bishop of the college of bishops. He is, was and always will be part of a larger, deliberative body. No action by the Pope that you have given as an example was done without the full consent of the rest of the orthodox Catholic hierarchy. The blame for the splits, if you want to assign any blame, rests as much in the hands of those who now call themselves Eastern Orthodox, as those who now call themselves Catholic. Can you agree to that?

But speaking of the Pope himself, the “power-of-service” (in brother SedesDomi’s words) or charism of infallibility given to the head bishop for the purpose of ensuring unanimity in the faith is not a gift of telepathy, omniscience, or inspiration - wouldn’t you at least agree? The Pope was indeed defending holy orthodox Catholicity during those times (wouldn’t you agree?). correctly confirming his brother bishops in the Faith. But the ability to delve into and understand the meaning behind the different terminologies that existed between the Catholic Church and the Church of the East on the one hand, and the Catholic Church and the non-Chalcedonians on the other, is not what infallibility is about. Such prescience would require not the charism of infallibility, but the charism of omniscience, or inspiration.

Your argument comes down to a straw man, if you really think about it. You set up this false caricature of a Pope who has the power of omniscience and inspiration, and then you knock him down when you claim he has not utilized them.

Having said that, I DO recognize that the Latin Catholic Church as a whole (and not just the Pope) made certain unjustifiable demands of Eastern and Oriental Christians in their search for the communion with the See of Rome that was part of orthodox Catholic identity in the undivided Church of the first millenium. I think everyone, even current Popes recognize this and there is now (and has existed for some time) an effort to recover the unique identities of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Christians in communion with Latin Catholic Christians.

A final point for you to consider is the level of unity among the apostolic churches that has in modern times been achieved between the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church?

I hope that I have given you a sufficient answer, an answer that will help you in your prayers to discern as brother Chaldean Rite suggested. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to ask.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I hope you answer the questions that I posed to you in my previous post. They were not merely rhetorical but were given to inspire your conscience. I am just concerned about you and would like, if you don’t mind, to guage where you are at by your answer to the questions. I sense, judging from your posts, that you have accomodated to yourself a lot of unfounded conceptions about the papacy. For the sake of your peace, with prayer, please let us know your response.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[D_M]

The first clear reference that I know of in recorded church history to what could be interpreted as papal supremacy is:

Council of Constantinople - 381 AD
Canon 3

"3

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome."

After this, a full propagation of papal supremacy as a doctrine came from Pope and doctor of the church St Leo the great (pope 440-461), who argued that Peter was the head of the church, and that he as bishop of Rome was speaking on behalf of Peter.

Sermon by Pope Leo, 446

A single person, Peter, is appointed from the whole world as a leader in the calling of all peoples, and is placed above all the other apostles and the fathers of the Church. Although there are many priests among the people of God, and many pastors, Peter should of right rule all of those whom Christ himself rules in the first instance. Great and marvelous, my dear brethren, is the participation in its own power which it has pleased the Divine Excellency to grant to this man. And such powers as it granted to other leaders in common with Peter were granted only through Peter.

I wonder also, in the Messianic prophecies of the priest who stood near the messiah was also a reference to Peter and his See?:

Zechariah 6:13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both."

It is also clear that western emperors were treating Leo’s claims to be as such at the time, I underlined what I think is one of the most critical verses in terms of historical interest:

Edict of Emperor Valentinian III, 445

We are convinced that the only defence for us and for our Empire is in the favour of the God of heaven: and in order to deserve this favour it is our first care to support the Christian faith and its venerable religion. Therefore, inasmuch as the pre-eminence of hte Apostolic See is assured by the merit of S. Peter, the first of hte bishops, by the leading position of the city of Rome and also by the authority of the holy Synod, let not presumption strive to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that See. For the peace of the churches will only then be everywhere preserved when the whole body acknowledge its ruler. Hitherto this has been observed without violation; but Hilary, Bishop of Arles, as we have learnt from teh report of that venerable man Leo, the pope of Rome, has with contumacious presumption venture upon certain unlawful proceedings; and thus an abominable confusion has invaded the church beyond the Alps… By such presumptuous acts confidence in the Empire, and respect for our rule is destroyed. Therefore in the first place we put down so great a crime: and, beyond that, in order that no disturbance, however slight, may arise among the churches, and the othe disciple of religion may not appear to be impaired in any case whatever, we decree, by a perpetual edict, that nothing shall be attempted by the Gallican bishops, or by those of any other province, contrary to the ancient custome, without the authority of the Apostolic See has enacted, or shall enact, let that be held as law for all. So that if any bishop summoned before the pope of Rome shall neglect to attend, let him be compelled to appera by the governor of the province.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I hope you answer the questions that I posed to you in my previous post. They were not merely rhetorical but were given to inspire your conscience. I am just concerned about you and would like, if you don’t mind, to guage where you are at by your answer to the questions. I sense, judging from your posts, that you have accomodated to yourself a lot of unfounded conceptions about the papacy. For the sake of your peace, with prayer, please let us know your response.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

OK, give me some time. I have been trying to avoid posting lately. I don’t think the arguing is positive spiritually so it might take a little time.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother DM,

The first clear reference that I know of in recorded church history to what could be interpreted as papal supremacy is:

Council of Constantinople - 381 AD
Canon 3

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome."

I would not count this as a “clear” reference to papal supremacy - maybe a seed of the doctrine - but it is not clear.

It was not until the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28, that it was more clearly defined that the privileges spoken of were not ones of mere honor, but rather ones of ecclesiastical precedence (the Canon from Constantinople could have meant political honors, as far as the wording was concerned). This included, among other things, the jurisdiction to judge between bishops throughout the world (in a collegial context of course).

But even BEFORE Constantinople in 381, there was the Council of Sardica in 343. If it were not for the fact that most of the Eastern bishops were heretics, this would have been regarded as the SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. Indeed, that was the intention of the Emperor and the orthodox Council Fathers. But since the heretical Eastern bishops left, there was hardly any Eastern representation for the Council to become Ecumenical. In any case, that the Council was INTENDED to be Ecumenical is of great import because during this Council, it was determined that the bishop of Rome had the authority to judge between bishops of the entire Church, East and West.

Of course, this Council, with all its deliberations were eventually approved by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, which gave Sardica the stamp of universality.

But even before Sardica, we find the First Ecumenical Council adopting the doctrinal decision of Pope St. Stephen regading the baptism controversy as a universal principle for the Church (that incident really has more to do with infallibility than supremacy, though).

Even without the testimony of the Councils, we have the testimony of numerous individual Fathers. We have Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria appealing to Rome to make a judgment over the bishop of Jerusalem who was making claims not befitting his station. There was St. Basil who literally begged Pope St. Damasus to make a judgment upon the See of Antioch. Even before that, we have the words of St. Irenaeus, and the actions of Pope St, Victor, and Pope St. Clement as demonstrations of the extent of papal jurisdiction. Of course, we also have the famous letter of St, Ignatius, who not only assigns to Rome the presidency of love, but also a purity in doctrine that is not contained in his letters to the other Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

OK, give me some time. I have been trying to avoid posting lately. I don’t think the arguing is positive spiritually so it might take a little time.

Brother, forgive me if I sounded like I was arguing. Take all the time you want.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Brother, forgive me if I sounded like I was arguing. Take all the time you want.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I wasn’t speaking of you. I was speaking of forums in general. It is a constant arguement or fight on this forum about what is legitimate theology.

 

[D_M]

Dear Brother Marduk,

(this is such a warm greeting)

You’re correct it does not clearly refer to papal supremacy as we understand it. ‘Clear’ is a poor word choice on my part, and I agree that one could have formed different interpretation from simply that line; what I meant was that it was the earlier reference I knew of on record to what could be interpreted as papal supremacy in church history.

I thank you for sharing your wisdom about those others that I did not know…

God Bless,

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,
The EO problem with this interpretation is that it is unbiblical. EO are trying to falsely dichotomize the person of Peter, the faith of Peter and Jesus Christ.

No one denies that all three are true interpretations. The problem is that the west has dogmatitzed the one interpretation and made it the primary sense even though most of the fathers would not agree. The idea that the faith is the rock is now only a subsequent spiritual interpretation. The order is consequently switched. Peter is the rock and his faith is therefore his faith is a rock. And this is how papal infallibility is; Rome is the rock and their profession is a rock because they are the rock.

It was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ. It was also revealed to the others though as well. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit at pentecost to a far greater degree than Peter was in Matt.16.

The model of the Church is the model of the heavenly hierarchy, which is a monarchy.

The Church wasn’t always a monarchy. St. Cyprian didn’t think so when he denied what Pope Stephen said and went and called a council that said heretical baptisms were invalid.

The situation with the apostles was different than it is with the bishops. Neither east nor west would deny that. The problem is that Romes ecclesiology is not shown in the text of the scriptures either. It doesn’t show Peter as an authority greater than any of the other apostles. What it shows is simply Peter representing the aposltes. Peter speaks to all the disciples at Pentecost, he speaks when they are on trial and etc. He is never shown to speak apart from the rest of the apostles though. He never acts unilaterally.

Rather the apostles speak with one voice. What James says at the council of Jerusalem is, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’. Peter did not make the decision. It was the consent of the Holy Spirit and the apostles. James is the one who makes the final statement rather than Peter.

I think you are misinterpreting the concept of the papacy. I think you are trying to interpret it in a way that is more palatable. But the fact is that Rome has the choice to exercise their authority either individually or collegially(This is mentioned clearly in the canons).

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.The bishop of Rome can discuss with the other bishops if he wishes but he can also ignore everything they say. Rome’s authority is absolute. The bishop of Rome appoints bishops, deposes them, calls councils, affirms them, and if he likes he can disband a council at any time or declare it to be invalid if he feels like it.

However, in certain unique circumstances, the monarchical element of the Church must predominate for the sake of the good order of the Church. Your understanding is that the monarchical model predominates at all times.

The authority of Rome is what is behind authority in the Catholic Church. It is the authority of Rome that makes a council. A bishop is basically just an advisor and a vicar of the pope. To say otherwise seems like semantics to me. Rome says that the other bishops have legitimate authority that is inherent in their ordination but when you see the authority the pope claims all that becomes meaningless. A bishops authority at a council is about the same as the authority as the members of the cabinet of the president. Take for example canon 334.Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.The role of the bishops is assistants.

[Continued]

 

[jimmy]

Here again is a misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology. Bishops, as the Catholic Church teaches, have power and authority IN AND OF THEMSELVES, by virtue of the grace of God, not by virtue of their agreement with

Rome.

Yes, they inherently have the authority to ordain priests and bishops(this is a difference between EO and Catholic theology). But strangely, their authority to govern is all dependant on Rome. Their authority to rule is just a manifestation of the authority of Rome as the above canons show.

If they do not agree with

Rome on a matter of faith and morals (a standard that CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY existed from the earliest times), then those bishops have cut themselves off from Catholic orthodoxy.

Did Severus of Antioch cut himself off from Catholic orthodoxy? He disagreed with Rome and it was actually the presence of pope Agapetus in Rome which led to the condemnation of Severus.

If they are disobedient (not merely disagree, which is acceptable) on a matter of discipline or practice, then they are in schism. This is the same underlying principle that exists in ALL apostolic Churches. If you can show me an apostolic Church which denies that you must be in doctrinal agreement with a focal point of authority, then your complaint does not seem to have any merit. Perhaps you meant to write something else?

The statement which you quote is about the origin of the authority of the bishops. The bishops authority to govern is simply a manifestation of the authority of the bishop of Rome. He can withhold that authority at any time if he so chooses.

That the head bishop has the authority to call a council or synod is enshrined in the constitution of EVERY Church. It seems rather hypocritical to criticize the Catholic Church for something that the Orthodox themselves practice.

It is not simply about calling councils. The pope calls the council, affirms or condemns the council, disbands the council if he desires. The council is simply a manifestation of his authority. Check out canon 333 above.

It doesn’t seem as if you discussed papal infallibility at all, but rather papal primacy. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Infallibility and universal jurisdiction are part of the same issue.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for your question. This is something I wrestled with as well before I came into Catholic communion.

My research has led me to conclude that the complaint is merely part of a polemic agenda (recall, if you have ever read the thread “My Witness” that part of my awakening to Catholic identity involved being cleansed of misconceptions about the Catholic Church). My reading of Church history and modern Church documents convinced me that the Pope is NOT the arbitrary, autocratic, absolute monarch that the Orthodox and Protestant polemic makes him out to be.

As I mentioned above, the pope exercises his authority as he chooses. He can choose to operate collegially or personally as canon 333 (this is the latin code but the eastern code says the same thing) says.

The fact is, the Pope is the head bishop of the college of bishops. He is, was and always will be part of a larger, deliberative body. No action by the Pope that you have given as an example was done without the full consent of the rest of the orthodox Catholic hierarchy. The blame for the splits, if you want to assign any blame, rests as much in the hands of those who now call themselves Eastern Orthodox, as those who now call themselves Catholic. Can you agree to that?

The difference is that the bishop of Constantinople or Ephesus or whatever other ancient city you wish to mention does not claim the same authority that Rome has claimed. The bishops of Constantinople and the other Greek speaking cities might have condemned the Syrians but they weren’t claiming infallibility.

But speaking of the Pope himself, the “power-of-service” (in brother SedesDomi’s words) or charism of infallibility given to the head bishop for the purpose of ensuring unanimity in the faith is not a gift of telepathy, omniscience, or inspiration - wouldn’t you at least agree?

My point is not that the pope is or needs to be telepathic. My point is that the concept of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of Rome does not create unity. Regarding the Orientals and the CofEast, they were condemned for heresies they did not hold.

Having said that, I DO recognize that the Latin Catholic Church as a whole (and not just the Pope) made certain unjustifiable demands of Eastern and Oriental Christians in their search for the communion with the See of Rome that was part of orthodox Catholic identity in the undivided Church of the first millenium. I think everyone, even current Popes recognize this and there is now (and has existed for some time) an effort to recover the unique identities of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Christians in communion with Latin Catholic Christians.

A final point for you to consider is the level of unity among the apostolic churches that has in modern times been achieved between the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church?

Could you expand on this?

It seems that the idea of infallibility of the pope is based on a western approach to theology. It seems that its purpose is specifically to further define the faith. Knowledge of truth is percieved as strictly intellectual. You know God through your intellect. Therefore development of the doctrine is necessary. And in fact, a lack of development would mean the Church is dead. Consequently the infallibility of the pope is a necessary aspect of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

I would say that since you are highly educated, this is more of a spiritual exercise than a intellectual one. Take it up in prayer.

You are absolutely correct Chaldean Rite. That is why I have been trying to avoid posting here lately. It seems to have negative affects upon my prayer life. It creates an argumentative spirit.

To all, to sum up my problems in these discussions. It all seems to come down to the idea that I sense that the faith is being fosilized by western Christianity. All mystery and paradox is removed. It seems to come down to definitions. It seems that it is being removed from life and is simply an aspect of textbooks. The spiritual life almost becomes one of the doctrines of the Church.

The thing I find to be profoundly true about the eastern Churches is that it emphasizes the idea that we know God through the heart. All knowledge of God comes from our experience of the energies or action of God in us and in creation in general.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You are absolutely correct Chaldean Rite. That is why I have been trying to avoid posting here lately. It seems to have negative affects upon my prayer life. It creates an argumentative spirit.

Sometimes I feel like these forums are a vice in my life too…then I have recourse to Our Lady and She usually straightens me up.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for letting me know your point of view.

No one denies that all three are true interpretations.

EVERY SINGLE EO polemicist who has come on this board has denied that Peter refers to the rock.

The problem is that the west has dogmatitzed the one interpretation and made it the primary sense even though most of the fathers would not agree. The idea that the faith is the rock is now only a subsequent spiritual interpretation. The order is consequently switched. Peter is the rock and his faith is therefore his faith is a rock. And this is how papal infallibility is; Rome is the rock and their profession is a rock because they are the rock.

Please cite a Catholic document that supports this impression that you have about the Catholic teaching. Permit me to quote Vatican I for you:

THEN ,AFTER Simon had acknowledged Christ with the confession…it was to Simon alone that the solemn words were spoken by the Lord…"Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."

Here we see that the Church dogmatically understands that gift that the Lord gave to Peter to be the rock WAS A RESULT of his confession. I don’t see any room for the caricature you have given.

Whereever you have gotten your impression, it cannot have been from the teaching of the Catholic Church. In all seriousness, I must ask if your sources are anti-Catholic polemics. If you claim otherwise, I request once again that you demonstrate the impression you have given above with Catholic documents.

If you cannot, are you willing to let go of your impression?

It was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ. It was also revealed to the others though as well.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. It was indeed revealed to the others that Jesus was the Christ, BUT IT WAS REVEALED TO THEM THROUGH PETER’S ADMISSION OF IT, and Jesus’ subsequent confirmation that what Peter stated was indeed from God himself. Once again, the principle of one as the mouthpiece for the others, the principle of one to confirm the faith of and to the others. Where in this occasion do the Orthodox find support for their ecclesiology? Can you please point out where it states that Peter’s confession was revealed to the other Apostles DIRECTLY and NOT through the mouth of their coryphaeus? I hope you can respond.

They were all filled with the Holy Spirit at pentecost to a far greater degree than Peter was in Matt.16.

Actually, it was not the Holy Spirit who gave Peter his words, but the Father himself. True enough, after Pentecost, all the Apostles would be invested with inspiration, Can you tell me then, why even AFTER all the Apostles were gifted with inspiration, it was, ONCE AGAIN, THROUGH PETER’S MOUTH that it was revealed that the Gentiles should be let into the Church? You’d think this was the perfect opportunity for God to establish Orthodox ecclesiology. Instead, we have the Catholic ecclesiology supported by the actions of God Himself after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The Church wasn’t always a monarchy. St. Cyprian didn’t think so when he denied what Pope Stephen said and went and called a council that said heretical baptisms were invalid.

I never stated the Church was a monarchy. I stated that heaven is a monarchy. And that the Church follows an imperfect monarchical model. Can you reassess my question and answer it accordingly?

It doesn’t matter waht St. Cyprian thought. The First Ecumenical Council vindicated Pope St. Stephen’s teaching, not Cyprian’s. In fact, the very heretics that Cyprian stated had invalid baptism (the Novatians/Cathari), the Nicene Council countered that they did!!

The situation with the apostles was different than it is with the bishops. Neither east nor west would deny that.

Yes, it was different. The difference is that the Apostles had even MUCH GREATER charisms than the bishops of today. Yet even despite their greater spiritual gifts, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF asserted that they would need one among them who would confirm them in the faith, and to this one He said he would give a special prayer. Now, with the bishops who have lesser charisms than the Apostles, are we now to believe that Jesus Christ’s own concern for the Apostles is no longer applicable? That is a very strange way of thinking. I guess that is why I could never be EO.

Someone has stated, “The Orthodox DO have an entity that confirms them in the faith, and that is the ecumenical council.” To this I replied, “show me where Jesus stated that a council would confirm the Apostles in the faith?” No reply from that person. Perhaps you can give a response to my question?

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

The problem is that Romes ecclesiology is not shown in the text of the scriptures either.

I already addressed this above.

It doesn’t show Peter as an authority greater than any of the other apostles.

Yes, he is not greater than them, but he is unique and has special responsibilities that the other Apostles did not share - i.e., being the focal mouthpiece of both God and the Church. This is GOD’s order, brother Jimmy, not the Catholic Church’s. We are simply following God’s established order. Do you recall the result of Korah’s rebellion? Do you recall why Korah was punished? It was because he claimed to be equal in every way to the ONE that God Himself established to be the spokesman and leader of His people during those uniquely trying times. Similary, according to the model of Church order given by Jesus, we see that there is ONE who will be the head of His people in the special circumstances when the unique prerogatives of such a one will be needed for His people, ONE who will be the confirmer of the brethren during those special circumstances. Can you see that God’s divinely established order for His people has never changed from the Old to the New Testament? It seems this is exactly what the Apostles had in mind when they established what we know as Apostolic Canon 34.

What it shows is simply Peter representing the aposltes. Peter speaks to all the disciples at Pentecost, he speaks when they are on trial and etc. He is never shown to speak apart from the rest of the apostles though. He never acts unilaterally.

Well, I don’t see the difference with the office of the Pope. See the quote of the canons you gave below as proof. It says that in the exercise of his office, he is always in communion with the Church. I don’t see anyplace in the doctrines or canons of the Catholic Church where you could possibly conclude that the Pope acts unilaterally. Perhaps you can show me (Canon 331.2 which you cited doesn’t cut it, as I demonstrated elsewhere - I will give the link when I address that part of your post)?

Rather the apostles speak with one voice. What James says at the council of Jerusalem is, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’. Peter did not make the decision. It was the consent of the Holy Spirit and the apostles.

All you say is true, but please don’t forget the fact that James had to make a JUDGMENT on his own SINGULAR authority in the FIRST place before they sent the letter containing the phrase given above. Thus, the order of events is actually - 1) a SINGLE voice makes a judgment with the advice and (name removed by moderator)ut of the others; 2) the Church (in this instance, the LOCAL Church) then takes that judgment and considers it her own.

James is the one who makes the final statement rather than Peter.

That is perfectly fine. It was a local Council, so that is the way it should be. Which Church Father was it (do you recall?) who proclaimed that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, but that Peter was the teacher OF THE WHOLE WORLD?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I will need to address the rest of your thought-provoking post(s) later.

 

[mardukm]

I think you are misinterpreting the concept of the papacy. I think you are trying to interpret it in a way that is more palatable. But the fact is that Rome has the choice to exercise their authority either individually or collegially(This is mentioned clearly in the canons).
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

Here is my response to Canon 333.2, copied from the “Head Bishop” thread:

*Analyzing your conclusion above, I would have to disagree, but not by much. I only disagree with the clause “by the head bishop acting alone.” You see, the head bishop (in this case, we are talking about the Pope) NEVER acts alone.

Perhaps you have drawn your conclusion from Latin Canon 333.2 which states - The Roman Pontiff…has the right to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

If this is the case, please consider this: Collegial indeed means the authority of the College of bishops (of whom the Pope is head). But “personal” does not mean “alone.” It refers to the authority of the Pope “ex cathedra” when exercising infallibility. This does not mean that the Pope is acting alone, for whatever else ex cathedra may mean, it certainly does not equate to inspiration. The Pope as a human being is constrained by the available means to sort through Sacred Tradition in order to make his judgment. This necessitates the involvement (opinions and judgments) of his brother bishops.

This is also evident from Church history, for in fact, the Pope has NEVER acted alone, even when enacting decrees on his own personal authority (please see posts #11 and #12 in this thread for examples).*

The bishop of Rome can discuss with the other bishops if he wishes, but he can also ignore everything they say.

That’s simply not true that he can discuss with the other bishops “if he wishes.” Other canons indicate that the bishop of Rome MUST discuss it with his brother bishops (the relevant canons are contained in the old “Papal Prerogatives” thread. Sorry I don’t have the time to look for it right now, but I know it is there). It is true, however, that he need not heed the advice of his brother bishops. Well, this is a necessity, for what if his brother bishops give him BAD advice? Do you feel the Pope is obligated to follow bad advice? On the other hand, you are simply assuming the Pope will automatically reject good advice. Tell me, brother. What possible biblical warrant gives you the right to judge the motives of a person that way? Seriously think about it brother. You are saying to yourself, “the canons say the Pope does not have to heed the advice of his brother bishops. I’ll just make a character judgment right now and assert that every Pope will be a bad Pope and reject good advice from his brother bishops.” Do you see that at that point, your decision will be based NOT on the teaching of the Church, but on an unjust character judgment? If you want to reject a teaching of the Church, that is your right, but don’t reject the Church because of an unjust character judgment, which is not your right.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Rome’s authority is absolute. The bishop of Rome appoints bishops, deposes them,

Once again, what is wrong with the ability of the bishop of Rome to appoint and depose bishops? This was practiced in the early Church often, AND NOT JUST BY THE BISHOP OF ROME. Besides, no canon permits the Pope to do such a thing without just cause. Here again, you are basing your judgment NOT on an analysis of a Church teaching, but merely on an unjust character judgment. In effect, you are saying, “well, the Pope has the ability to do this, so I’ll just assert right now that every Pope will be a bad Pope and depose any bishop he wants for any reason.” In fact, brother, the canons specifically forbid that a bishop can be deposed without just cause. Further, the canons forbid even the Pope from promising an office to someone.

calls councils, affirms them, and if he likes he can disband a council at any time or declare it to be invalid if he feels like it.

Once again, it is the prerogative of EVERY head bishop to be able to call councils, affirm them, and disband them. But show me ANYWHERE in the canons which permit a head bishop (including the Pope) from disbanding or declaring as invalid a council “if he feels like it.” I can assure you right now there is nothing in the canons of the Church that permits such a thing. Is this another unjust character judgment? Yes it is.

It is the authority of Rome that makes a council. A bishop is basically just an advisor and a vicar of the pope. To say otherwise seems like semantics to me.

Well, that is DEFINITELY false. The authority of a Council comes from the Supreme authority of the WHOLE body of bishops. What canon of the Catholic Church, what teaching, could possibly give you that impression?

Something you apparently don’t understand about your Church is that the infallibility of the Church is evident in three ways:

1. The Pope teaching ex cathedra wherein he forms a teaching collegially, and promulgates the teaching by virtue of his own office.
2. The Ecumenical Council, which forms a teaching collegially, and promulgates the teaching by virtue of collegial authority.
3. Individual bishops - even when spread throughout the world - when any single one teaches something in agreement with every other bishop of the world.

What part of those three methods do you not understand that forces you to judge that the SOLE authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope?

Rome says that the other bishops have legitimate authority that is inherent in their ordination but when you see the authority the pope claims all that becomes meaningless. A bishops authority at a council is about the same as the authority as the members of the cabinet of the president. Take for example canon 334.Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.The role of the bishops is assistants.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for bringing this up, brother. It makes me realize the source of your confusion. This canon ONLY and SPECIFICALLY addresses the exercise of the Pope’s office. It does not address the exercise of the office of individual bishops. The PRIMARY concern of ANY bishop is the governing of his OWN diocese, of any Metropolitan/Archbishop, his OWN Metropolical See/Archbishopric, and of any Patriarch, his OWN Patriarchate. This canon is simply saying that the bishops CAN and DO help the Pope, and can do so in various ways that are according to canonical norms.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I will get to more of your thought-provoking posts progressively. Thanks for your patience.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Yes, they inherently have the authority to ordain priests and bishops(this is a difference between EO and Catholic theology).

WOW! This is really surprising to me! I did not know that in your religion, the bishops do not have the authority/power to ordain priests and other bishops. Can you explain this a bit more? In the Catholic Church, we truly believe that when a bishop ordains, he has the ability to call down the holy spirit to sanctify someone for the purpose of that ordination. The strangeness of Eastern Orthodoxy is all of a sudden very apparent to me.

But strangely, their authority to govern is all dependant on Rome. Their authority to rule is just a manifestation of the authority of Rome as the above canons show.

I’m afraid you have not demonstrated your point from the canons above, brother. What you have done is cut and paste canons devoid of context in order to attempt to prove to yourself some unjust character judgments.

Did Severus of Antioch cut himself off from Catholic orthodoxy? He disagreed with Rome and it was actually the presence of pope Agapetus in Rome which led to the condemnation of Severus.

Really? Patriarch Severus disagreed only with Rome? Pope St. Agapetus condemned Severus? Where are you getting your information? As I understand it, Severus had a DOCTRINAL disagreement, which would make his disagreement with ALL of Chalcedonian Christendom, and not just Rome. Further, it was Patriarch Mennas who deposed Severus. Another question: What is your point for bringing this up?

The statement which you quote is about the origin of the authority of the bishops. The bishops authority to govern is simply a manifestation of the authority of the bishop of Rome. He can withhold that authority at any time if he so chooses.

First of all, you did not address my request at all. Here it is again: show me an apostolic Church which denies that you must be in doctrinal agreement with a focal point of authority.
Secondly, can you please show me a canon or teaching of the Catholic Church that supports your claim that the Pope can “withhold that authority at any time if he so chooses?” Thanks. If you can’t find it, are you willing to let go of this caricature of Catholic ecclesiology?

It is not simply about calling councils. The pope calls the council, affirms or condemns the council, disbands the council if he desires. The council is simply a manifestation of his authority. Check out canon 333 above.

This has already been addressed above. The process of your rationale is not a true analysis of the canon, but rather an unjust character judgment on a person. The “if he desires” clause has absolutely no warrant from the canons or teaching of the Church. Once again, I welcome any texts you can provide to prove your claim that a Pope can do this “if he desires.” If you cannot, are you willing to let go of this caricature of Catholic ecclesiology?

The difference is that the bishop of Constantinople or Ephesus or whatever other ancient city you wish to mention does not claim the same authority that Rome has claimed.

Wrong, brother Jimmy. In an Ecumenical Council, ALL the hierarchs share in the one infallibility of God. They made the judgment COLLECTIVELY, and so if you want to blame Rome for any schisms, you must in good conscience blame all the hierarchs of the Eastern Churches that were involved in those Ecumenical Councils. Or are you now going to claim that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible?

The bishops of Constantinople and the other Greek speaking cities might have condemned the Syrians but they weren’t claiming infallibility.

So now, the point is not really about causing splits in the Church, but now you qualify it with the condition that the one who does so must claim infallibility in order to have any blame. All I can say is: . Let me ask you this. Did a split occur or not, with or without claims of infallibility?

My point is not that the pope is or needs to be telepathic. My point is that the concept of universal jurisdiction and infallibility of Rome does not create unity.

Thanks for clarifying. Let me ask you this: should we say that the Ecumenical Council is for naught because it has not given us the unity that it is supposed to ensure? Think about it seriously, and let justice and fairness rule your mind. WHATEVER rationalization causes you to accept the Ecumenical Council DESPITE its inability to create unity, apply it to the concept of universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. You know very well what your rationalization will be - i.e., the Ecumenical Council cannot FORCE the conscience of individuals. Well, brother, there’s your answer. Universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility cannot force the conscience of individuals. However, for those who are willing to accept it, and submit their consciences to its truth, it is indeed a powerful force for unity.

Regarding the Orientals and the CofEast, they were condemned for heresies they did not hold

Let me put it this way: HOW do you suppose that the charism of infallibility (from your understanding) permits the Pope to understand linguistic differences in the theological language of other Churches (which was the source of the misunderstanding)? I didn’t know the charism of infallibility allows the Pope to read the minds of the Orientals and CotE(telepathy) or have all knowledge about all things (omniscience) in order for him to gain such understanding.

CONTINUED